There’s too much on-the-one-hand-on-the-other-hand in Jonathan Chait’s latest piece. When he finally comes to some decisions, it’s not very satisfying. I will say, though, that I agree with him that conservatism is doomed, but for a slightly different reason.
Here’s his take:
My belief, of which I obviously can’t be certain, is that conservatism as we know it is doomed. I believe this because the virulent opposition to the welfare state we see here is almost completely unique among major conservative parties across the world. In no other advanced country do leading figures of governing parties propose the denial of medical care to their citizens or take their ideological inspiration from crackpots like Ayn Rand. America’s unique brand of ideological anti-statism is historically inseparable (as I recently argued) from the legacy of slavery. Whatever form America’s polyglot majority ultimately takes, it is hard to see the basis for its attraction to an ideology sociologically rooted in white supremacy.
Our two major political parties may appear stable, but they’re really not. They are really just vehicles, like automobiles, that can carry any kind of passengers. The Democratic Party used to be the party for white segregationists and largely-Catholic ethnic minorities in the northern cities. The Republican Party used to be the party of respectable Yankees. Things have obviously flipped around quite a bit over the last fifty years. And they probably will again some day.
Conservatism is fairly wedded to the Republican Party, but the Republican Party isn’t wedded to conservatism. Whether conservatism is an ideology rooted in white supremacy or not, the Republican Party is in the business of winning elections. If being conservative wins elections, the GOP will stick with it. If being conservative loses elections, they’ll eventually get the message.
Don’t get me wrong. The Republican Party has already demonstrated that they can be slow learners. Between 1932 and 1968, the only time they were seriously competitive for any sustained period of time was when they pushed the conservative Robert Taft aside in favor of the decidedly moderate war hero Dwight Eisenhower. And the first chance they got after Nixon’s disastrous 1960 campaign, they nominated Barry Goldwater and got trounced.
I am not predicting the imminent moderation of the Republican Party, but I don’t think they will win any presidential elections, even with a tailwind at their back, until they stop being a party dominated by conservatives.
The structural disadvantages that the Republicans have in the Electoral College are only going to get worse. Chait goes through some of the reasons why: a growing minority population, more progressive views from younger voters on both social and economic issues…
In the near term, assuming that the GOP continues to pursue conservative aims like disenfranchising people of color and denying them access to health care, opposing immigration reform, and fanning the flames of white anxiety, it’s safe to assume that a growing non-white populace will translate neatly into a growing Democrat-leaning electorate.
And that means that states like New Mexico, Colorado, Nevada, and (eventually) Arizona will be out of reach for the GOP’s presidential nominee. It also means that Virginia, North Carolina, and (eventually) Georgia will start to lean into safe-blue territory. Florida won’t be a swing-state for much longer if the Republicans continue to alienate non-Cuban latinos. And even the Cubans are beginning to be a swing-vote.
The Republican Party won’t put up with this forever. For now, the financial elites are responding by trying to recruit Chris Christie or Jeb Bush, but both of those men are probably too conservative to fix the problem. Moving the party back to a Poppy Bush-level of conservatism would help, but even Poppy couldn’t win a national election right now because he couldn’t win 270 electoral votes.
It takes 270 to win, and that means the Republicans can flip Virginia and New Hampshire and Florida and Ohio and still lose. The magnitude of their disadvantage is only magnified if states like Virginia and Florida move beyond their reach.
And it really is conservatism that is to blame for this situation. If John McCain and Mitt Romney could have won the party’s nomination without turning themselves into conservative parodies of themselves, they would have had a shot.
Now, in California, some business leaders have basically given up on the GOP. The Democrats in the legislature enjoy supermajorities, so the only way to have any influence on government is to try to win over Democrats. If the GOP continues to flail in presidential elections, business leaders will set their sights on influencing the Democratic primaries more the Republican ones. And, over time, that might bring about another change of the basic alignment of the two parties.
The other possibility is that the Republican Party will be supplanted as one of the two major parties. But it has such huge legal advantages over minor parties, that’s it’s hard to see that happening. Maybe a billionaire’s revolt could fund the new party. I can envision Bloomberg and some like-minded peers of his creating a new center-right party that is fiscally conservative and decidedly un-libertarian in other areas. Maybe they would compete, at first, in states like New York that allow for candidates to run on multiple tickets at the same time. Or, they could compete in states like California, where party ID is up to the candidate, not the party.
The one thing I am fairly sure of is that the conservative capture of the Republican Party now has a shelf life. When conservatism brought victory and business-friendly laws and courts, it worked. It doesn’t work anymore.
The GOP in its present form can control Congress, or at least keep Congress from doing anything productive, for as far as the eye can see.
The White House by itself is something of a mixed bag.
The Republican party as currently formulated stands astride history shouting “No!” A lot of older people raised in a world of white-skinned privilege see any change to that order as inherently unfair, even racist (odd as that seems). As their numbers shrink, their rhetoric gets louder and they aggressively wave guns in the air. This is a symptom, and evidence, of a dying party. Or at least a dying political alignment. One yells and threatens when one feels impotent. If one steps back just a little, it becomes clear they’re hastening their own decline.
“The other possibility is that the Republican Party will be supplanted as one of the two major parties. But it has such huge legal advantages over minor parties, that’s it’s hard to see that happening.”
Or the Democrats could split into Conservadems and “everyone else” factions.
I think that’s much more likely than a 3rd party; it’s not like the Democratic party hasn’t split before.
Now, in California, some business leaders have basically given up on the GOP. The Democrats in the legislature enjoy supermajorities, so the only way to have any influence on government is to try to win over Democrats.
Which means the party will probably move to the right on economic matters, unless there is a countervailing force.
” . . . will probably move to the right on economic matters, unless there is a countervailing force.”
In California? Why would they? I think they’ll remember Gray Davis for a long time. And he was a Democratic governor that was toward the right on economic matters. Didn’t work out too well from what I hear, but maybe someone from California can speak to this . . .
What usually happens when business gets involved. Just look at the Blue Dogs/DLC’ers/New Dems in our party. The point being is that progress will be made harder. Places like Cal(Berkeley) are looking to privatize the school, under a Democratic governor no less.
What you sat is plausible as a general observation, but I think it may be quite a while before that happens in California. See Green Caboose’s comment below.
Historical context is very important. Personally, I think the country has been wanting to move in a Rooseveltian direction for some time now, and certainly since 2008. It’s only that the Republicans are very well aware of this and have been pulling out all stops to block it.
But the dam will break sooner or later, and I think at this point it will be sooner rather than later. Which means that the GOP may be faced with something like a New Deal-like situation. So it might be more relevant to check out what the GOP was like in the 1930s, when even a lot of the business sector came to realize that FDR was right.
In support of which:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/24/elizabeth-warren-amazon_n_5208807.html
Gray Davis was an ultra-boring Democratic Governor of California starting in 1998. The first thing to realize is that he was the first Democratic governor in 16 years – the GOP had hoodwinked California voters for the previous 4 elections and managed to blame the Democrats for the economic disasters caused by a) the right wing prop 3 and b) the right wingers refusal to approve reasonable budgets – the power of which they had by virtue of the 2/3 budget requirement of prop 13.
But in 1998 the dot com era was in full swing, California was awash in tax revenue (income tax being the one avenue left for state revenues, and all those dot com millionaires paying into state coffers) so a Dem could win.
But Davis was a target from emerging wingnut caucus from the start. In 2000 – “coincidentally” within 2 days of the Bush v Gore decision – a series of electric blackouts occurred all through California caused by … well, it was never clear exactly what, although electrical demand was low as it was December, and somehow they got many of the major newspapers and TV stations to blame Davis. In early 2002 newspapers that were ostensibly liberal but were owned by wingnut Gannet (such as the San Jose Murky News) began running every-other-day front page hit pieces on Davis, but when his GOP opponent committed political suicide they gave up.
In early 2003 a fringe wingnut got a recall petition started (remember that this was only 2 months after Davis had won re-election), some rich wingnuts funded him so that he got the recall on the ballot, and after it appeared that Davis would survive Ahnold became a late addition to the ballot and barely won – the difference being the male hispanic vote who voted against popular hispanic Cruz Bustamante and for the steroid macho man (and yes I hold a deep grudge, and no I don’t care if you think it racist).
So from 1982 to 2010 the GOP owned the governorship of CA for 23 of 28 years, the other 5 were when a Lieberdem occupied the governorship.
I think Jerry Brown has it right – the business leaders who ostensibly supported Davis dropped him like a hot potato when Blackengroper showed up – they are not to be trusted – get your support from reliable bases.
Aside from the Schwarzenegger debacle, CA has gone from reliably red in the 70s and early 80s to deep blue. The problem now, like NJ, is that the dems in the legislature are corrupt, but it’s still infinitely better than it’s been up to this point.
The caveat of course is that just as there are major liberal enclaves in TX and OK, much of rural CA is horrible. I live in one of the most left-leaning parts of the great SF Bay area – reliably 65% to 75% for Obama. But there’s a right wing radio station less than a mile from my house with a signal so strong it used to pipe Rush Limbaugh into my land line! The other 35% of even this hippie paradise is just as stupid as the deep south.
To put it another way – conservatism certainly appears to be dead as far as presidential elections go, but there will be millions of these white trash disgraces to humanity continuing to raise hell for a long long time.
“. . . until they stop being a party dominated by conservatives.”
When, exactly, since the end of WW2, has the republican Party NOT been dominated by conservatives?
OK, I know you can jiggle the meaning of “conservative” a bit, and sure at various times there has been a significant number of moderate Republicans.
ANd I suppose you’re talking about today’s brand of Koch Bros. conservatives.
But hell, even when Ike was president the GOP was dominated by conservatives. Wouldn’t you call people like Joe McCarthy and the Dulles brothers “conservative”? Then there was Goldwater.
Nixon? Jerry Ford? I guess that was the left wing of the GOP.
Then from Reagan straight through to now, definitely dominated by conservatives.
Remember Vice-President Nelson Rockefeller? He was Goldwater’s main rival for the nomination in 1964. You should read up on him.
Or, remember John Anderson who quit the GOP and ran as an independent in 1980?
More recently, there was John Chafee and his son Lincoln. Lincoln is now a Democrat. Jim Jeffords quit the GOP and became an independent allied with the Democrats. Arlen Specter flipped parties. Olympia Snowe gave up and retired.
There was once a pro-environment, pro-education, pro-infrastructure, pro-federal government wing of the Republican Party.
Those people were either purged, or they just walked away.
Yes I remember Nelson Rockefeller. Did he ever dominate the Republican Party? Did John Anderson? Did Lincoln Chafee?
Rockefeller was Goldwater’s main rival in 1964, but Goldwater got the nomination.
I’m not saying there weren’t any moderate Republicans. I’m saying they have not dominated the party since the 1920s.
I still think the quality and authenticity of the Prez candidates matters more than the current color codes of the US map.
There are 40-45% of voting age Americans that sit out every presidential election. The VAP turnout hasn’t been above 60% since 1968 even though the 2008 and 2012 presidential elections were the two highs since then. That group that sits out of Prez elections is not a static block and although half of them are unregistered there are more flexible elements that vote in some years and not in others.
I think in the aftermath of an unparalled Dem campaign machine and clumsy candidates like McCain and Romney many of us forget how badly a clumsy Dem candidate fares against someone on the Repub side that inspires them to GOTV.
Now given the state today of “conservatism” they are so extreme and hypocritical it’s much harder to imagine how they will find that trait of authenticity in any candidate that put forward. But there is a lot of self delusion on the Repub side of the fence and I’m not ready to take the map for granted in pushing Dems to a win in 2016.
I thought Chait’s piece did a nice job of politely eviscerating the doubters of the Teixiera model.
The thing is not “conservatives”. Conservative is not an ideology, it’s a political attitude towards change. If we take Schlesinger’s idea of cycles of reform, it’s natural for a period of reform (Civil War/Reconstruction, Progressive Era, the New Deal, the Great Society) to be followed by retrenchment and a backlash against change (the Gilded Age, the Roaring ’20s, the Complacent ’50s, the Reagan Revolution).
The fact is that younger voters are not opposed to conservatism but to a radical anti-government, pro-corporation ideology that seeks to turn them into lawn boys and au pairs for the 0.1%. They have no memory of some of the overreach of the Great Society (if you want to concede that) or the turmoil of the Civil Rights Era. To them, MLK has always been a hero and why the hell shouldn’t the government help lower my student loans.
Eventually, through ebbs and rises, this reform moment that is hopefully beginning under Obama will play itself out. And people will react against some form of left-leaning reform that turns out to be a bridge too far.
But I think there could be a good 20-30 year run in this cycle of reform.
Before we get too excited about the end of conservatism let’s keep a few things in mind.
The lesson of (1) is that Conservatives – at least the rich ones – know how to rig electoral systems to given them full power with a minority of the vote.
The lesson of (1) and (3) is that Conservatives are actively using these systems to rig the game, and then passing every nasty law they can when they are in power.
The lesson of (2) is that they are already very effective at doing these things today. This is not theory. And the corollary is that the Democratic party is inept at countering these moves.
The final lessons is that yes, you are right, the popular support for the Conservatives is dying rapidly. But their answer is … so what? Who is stupid enough to think that the majority actually has a say in a Conservative-run democracy?
Conservatism may be doomed but their activities and inaction have probably doomed all of us…
My point above is the “conservative” means different things in different places and times. It’s not fixed like an ideology. So while the Conservative party runs those countries, they are much more analogous to Clinton era Democrats than Republicans. Cameron isn’t Thatcher, who was eventually driven out of leadership because she became inflexibly ideological.
What has happened is not a failure of conservativism, but a failure of neo-laissez faire economics wedded to social reactionary stances.
The GOP nominated moderates in 1940, 1944, 1948, 1952, 1956, 1960, 1968, 1971 and 1976. In 1964, they nominated a far right ideologue and got smoked. But ever since then, they’ve captured the backlash against the social, cultural and economic changes of the ’60s. Nobody under 50 gives a fuck about that anymore, so that appeal is dying.
Wait 15-20 years and they’ll find something that upsets enough people that they will feel comfortable standing astride the path of progress yelling stop again.
imo.
I’ve even gone so far as to argue that their escalation in madness ushered in by the Pee Party is really an indicator that the greedy masterminds are fully aware of it.
It’s a little tough to make what could be a long story short, but suffice it to say that if they survive the success of that socialistic Obamacare, it’s not gonna be too long before they’re gonna be confronted with a diet of “socialistic” solutions to climate change that “big gov” will be compelled to serve up in several courses…
While I’d be the last person in the world to misunderestimate the stupidity of the common con, I’d also be the last to argue they are so collectively braindead stupid that they won’t realize when they’ve been conned.
“There’s an old saying in Tennessee — I know it’s in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can’t get fooled again.” –Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17, 2002
Rather than accept and acknowledge their responsibility for the inaction of the last couple of decades, their base will blame those that have have made them so gullible and stupid, as is commonly the case with the swindled.
Politically speaking, I’ve long thought that we have an age of the “CONverts” coming in this country. It really doesn’t matter if their masterminds have been aware (in terms of years v decades) of all of this or not, because income inequality, etc, are really nothing more than the product of a squirreling away of money that will retain its “speech” value for as long as that particular doctrine dictates who holds the reigns of political power in this country.
The apathy of the modern rightwingnuts will melt away like the snows on Mt. Everest, and the long violated dedicated self-interest will arise in the decades to come as we’re ravaged by climate change and all it will bring us, or perhaps more accurately, deprive us of.
They won’t be able to survive in their current form once we’re collectively confronted with the arrival of an “Independence Day”, with them in the role of the aliens.
So you’re saying the only appeal of libertarianism is racism? Nuts.
No there is also that juvenile selfishness at it’s core